Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 13
Application No. 08/431,360
Phelps. In that regard, Phelps teaches a device for occluding
body lumens or cavities having fibers secured to a substrate
with free fiber ends extending outwardly from the occlusion
device at radially spaced locations on the substrate (see
especially Figures 6 and 11 of Phelps). Moreover, it is our
view that this evidence is not commensurate in scope with the
claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.2
Claim 16
Claim 16 is drawn to a device for occluding a body lumen
or cavity in mammals, comprising, inter alia, a helically
wound coil having a multiplicity of windings defining a lumen
and a plurality of fibers having first and second end portions
2We note that a disclosure that anticipates under 35
U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ
1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681
F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007